June 2008

The heading above is the title of a new book by Mark Krikorian. Mark writes:

My new book is being released this week: The New Case Against Immigration, Both Legal and Illegal, published by Sentinel, part of the Penguin Group.

The central point of the book — the part of the ”Case” that’s ”New” — is that mass immigration is incompatible with modern society, not because the immigrants are different, but because we are. The changes that mark a modern country — in the economy, society, government, technology, etc. — are so fundamental that America’s past success with immigration is no longer relevant. In other words, large-scale immigration was an important phase in our national development, but one we have outgrown.

The book has chapters on sovereignty, assimilation, security, the economy, government spending, and population, as well as a final chapter outlining in some detail what a modern American immigration policy should look like.

David Frum of the conservative American Enterprise Institute has written that the book ”will head any list of the outstanding public policy books of 2008. … This is a book that will anchor the national conversation on immigration in the months ahead”

Mickey Kaus, a liberal journalist and welfare expert has written, ”It is to the immigration debate what Losing Ground was to the poverty debate. My copy is already dog-eared.”

To see more advance reaction to the book, as well as to read the Introduction, visit here

Australia’s new centre-Left government seems mad-keen to increase immigration but their union supporters don’t like that at all. The measures below are an attempt to placate the unions. The unions have long been the major source of anti-immigration sentiment in Australia so there is no doubt that they will put the brakes on the do-gooder ambitions of their government

Harsh penalties for employers of 457 visa workers and increased powers for immigration officers are part of a shake-up of Australia’s temporary skilled migration program to be proposed today by the Rudd Government. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the new laws would help prevent the exploitation of foreign workers and ensure the wages and conditions of Australian workers were not undercut.

Senator Evans will today release a discussion paper on proposed reforms to the 457 visa regime, as part of a major review promised in April. Proposed changes include expanded powers for immigration officers to enter and search workplaces to determine whether employers are complying with sponsorship obligations.

Employers could also face penalties of up to 10 years’ jail or $110,000 fines for providing false or misleading information, and naming and shaming if they fail to remedy breaches. Government agencies such as the Australian Taxation Office would also be able to share information to determine whether visa holders were being paid the correct amount.

The proposed changes, planned for September, come as Australia has dramatically increased its intake of permanent and temporary migrants. For the first time, the temporary skilled migration program will exceed 100,000 over the 2007-08 financial year.

In the discussion paper, the Government also seeks feedback on additional obligations that sponsors may have to temporary foreign workers. Unions have demanded guarantees of market wages for workers on 457 visas and tough requirements for bosses to prove skilled jobs can’t be filled locally.

Says immigration reform “top priority” for first 100 days. “Reform” could mean anything but we know what McCain’s track record is

Boldly declaring that he will make comprehensive immigration reform his “top priority,” during his first 100 days in office, Sen. John McCain today assured Latino leaders that they will have an ally in the White House. “It will be my top priority yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” McCain told the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Saturday. “Immigration reform will be my top priority because we have the obligation to address a federal issue from a federal standpoint. I will reach across the aisle again and work in a bipartisan fashion. We will resolve the immigration issue in America and we will secure our borders.”

McCain made the statement in response to a question about his Oval Office priorities after mainly focusing on the economy during his opening remarks to the group. He addressed NALEO this morning just before his Democratic rival spoke, noting at the top of his remarks that he was hoping the conference could have served as a forum for his joint-town hall proposal.

While McCain mostly avoided attacks on Obama-not even taking his usual shot at the Democrat’s support for a labor-backed amendment that hurt last year’s Senate immigration effort-the Illinois Senator exercised no such restraint.

Instead, McCain noted the battle he had with his own party during the failed comprehensive immigration reform effort. “We tried, I reached across the aisle..and we worked in bipartisan fashion. And we were defeated and by the way it wasn’t very popular-let’s have some straight talk-with some in my party and so I did that and worked together so we could carry out a federal responsibility,” he said. “We have to secure our borders. That’s the message. But we also must proceed with a temporary worker program.”

The Arizona Senator’s remarks were also interrupted four times by hecklers-three members of the anti-war group Code Pink-and once by a man with a media credential seated with the press. McCain left off the last portion of his prepared remarks after the third interruption and went straight into questions from NALEO officials. Most NALEO attendees applauded McCain after each interruption and the GOPer received cheers after his response to the first heckler as she was escorted out. “I am sure you have seen the polls recently about trust and confidence in government and the frustration that Americans feel about us,” he said, deviating from his prepared remarks. “The one thing Americans want us to stop doing is yelling at each other.”

UPDATE: McCain Camp responds to Obama NALEO attack:

“It’s quite audacious for Barack Obama to question John McCain’s commitment to immigration reform when it was Obama himself who worked to kill the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform compromise last year. Barack Obama voted for five `poison pill’ amendments designed by special interests to kill the immigration reform deal. These efforts were strongly opposed by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), the Democrat who led the fight for immigration reform, because he understood they would have the effect of ending the bipartisan work toward immigration reform,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

“The reality is that Barack Obama has never reached across the aisle to lead in a bipartisan fashion on an issue of major importance to the American people when his own political interests were at risk. The American people are tired of typical politicians like Barack Obama. While John McCain was reaching across the aisle to solve the tough problem of immigration reform, Barack Obama was working for politics as usual in Washington.”

They are trying to spin it otherwise but the real problem is that Gypsies largely live by crime

Italy has announced controversial plans to fingerprint thousands of Roma Gypsy children in a bid to clamp down on street begging. Interior Minister Roberto Maroni said mass fingerprinting by police would allow them to identify those caught begging instead of going to school. Their parents would then be questioned and risk losing custody of them. This would protect the children by deterring families who sent them out to accost passers-by, he said.

But the scheme, which will also involve fingerprinting all adult Roma, was immediately criticised for its unacceptable discrimination and “ethnic screening”. There has been an angry backlash against Roma in Italy in recent months, with petrol bombs thrown at a camp in Naples and sporadic vigilante attacks. Many Italians blame Gypsies for the rising crime rate and the new Government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has launched a tough crackdown on crime and immigration.

There are estimated to be about 160,000 Roma Gypsies in Italy, often living in appalling conditions in makeshift camps with little basic sanitation. Officials plan to bulldoze all illegal camps and a recent opinion poll found that 68 per cent of Italians want all Gypsies expelled.

Vincenzo Spadafora, of the UN children’s organisation UNICEF, said of the fingerprints plan: “If this is being brought in to protect the rights of Roma children, Italian children should also be fingerprinted to protect them as well. “Most importantly, children should not be treated as adults.” Opposition MP Rosa Bindi said: “The minister may deny it’s ethnic screening but it is frankly unacceptable.”

Jewish groups also attacked the plan. Amos Luzzarto, a former leader of Italy’s Jewish community, said: “There is a latent form of racism which manifests itself in cycles in Italian culture. “I remember as a child being stamped and tagged as a Jew and as such could not be trusted. “I think Italy is forgetting its past here. The racism of this initiative is evident and unacceptable. “This is not a new form of fascism, this is racism.”

Tuesday’s primary defeat of six term Utah Congressman Chris Cannon at the hands of political neophyte Jason Chaffetz was, without a doubt, the greatest electoral victory of the immigration control movement. The election was about one — and only one — issue: Chris Cannon’s long support of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Before Tuesday, there was not one contest where supporters of border security could say that their issue won the election. This is not to say that the immigration control has not been popular with the American people. Polls have consistently shown across the board support for enforcement and opposition to amnesty. The grassroots of the Republican Party went into full on rebellion in the Summers of 2006 and 2007 when Bush, McCain, and Kennedy introduced their amnesty. Phone lines were shut down. The RNC saw fundraising hit new lows, with loyal Republicans vowing to never vote for, much less donate to, pro-amnesty politicians

But at the ballot box, the voters did not always put their money where their mouth was. Illegal immigration failed to become the “silver bullet” issue that would save the GOP from a Democratic takeover. Immigration restrictionists JD Hayworth, John Hostettler, and Randy Graf — all of whom had very serious electoral problems unrelated to immigration — were all defeated. Then, John McCain — who had been the chief sponsor of both “comprehensive immigration reform” bills — won the Republican nomination for president.

None of these contests were mandates for amnesty. Graf, Hayworth, and Hostettler’s opponents all claimed to be tough on immigration, and John McCain won only after he started running ads saying he would oppose amnesty and “Secure the Border First.” Nonetheless, his victory certainly conveyed the message to many politicians that if they could weather the storm of angry phone calls, the voters would let them flip flop come Election Day.

This plan had worked well for Chris Cannon in the past. The Congressman has been one of the most active pro-amnesty Republicans in the House. He voted for over a dozen amnesty bills and co-sponsored seven. This got him praise from open borders groups like La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. Upon winning the “Excellence in Leadership” award from the latter, he told the crowd, “We love immigrants in Utah. And we don’t oftentimes make the distinction between legal and illegal. In fact I think Utah was the first state in the country to legislate the ability to get a driver’s license based on the matricula consular and of that I am proud.”

His liberal immigration record gave plenty of ammo to primary opponents who made anti-amnesty based challenges in 2004 and 2006. In both races, he began to talk tough in the weeks leading up to the primary. Upon reelection, he would continue to vote for amnesty. Cannon tried the exact same tricks this year. He put up ads with a picture of a fence saying “Chris Cannon will replace `catch and release’ with `catch and deport'” He even erroneously accused his challenger Jason Chaffetz of being a supporter of amnesty.

Chaffetz responded that the Congressman “gets tough on immigration about two weeks before an election. That’s it.” He won in a 20 point landslide. Jason Chaffetz says his victory “is a mandate to fight for conservative Constitutional values.” This is true, but aside from immigration, Cannon has generally fought for those values too. He has a 96% lifetime voting rating from the American Conservative Union and 100% from the NRA and the National Right to Life.

In addition to his conservative credentials, Cannon had numerous of other advantages going for him. He outspent Chaffetz by $600,000, and had George Bush — who is still popular in Utah — as well as the State’s two Republican Senators campaign for him.

Were it not for immigration, Cannon would not have had to worry about a primary challenger. Some may question why we should go after an erstwhile outstanding conservative just for his deviation on one issue. It is precisely because conservative activists will not let otherwise trustworthy politicians waiver on issues like guns, taxes, and abortion that they have been able to make them winning issues.

We will not be able to even begin to fix the crisis of illegal immigration until the politicians who got us into our current mess are held accountable. One down.

There are large political difficulties in providing new infrastructure. Just to take a very obvious example: More people increases the demand for water. So build news dams to supply it? Not if the Greenies have any say! And they do. The problems are political, not technical — but that does not mean that they can easily be overcome

The congestion problems in the news this week have the same cause as a lot of other problems that make the Herald’s front page. They’re due to our increasing population, or more precisely, our failure to make adequate provision for it.

This might seem obvious, but in fact Sydney is in a state of denial about population increase. We don’t prepare for it adequately and seem constantly surprised that public services and infrastructure fail. When they do, we blame politicians, or climate change, or the greed of people (other people) for cars and houses and air conditioning. Anything but what is often the main cause, population growth. This comes from births, migration from other parts of Australia, and immigration, but it’s only the last category we have much control over.

This week the Bureau of Statistics announced that last year the nation’s population grew at its fastest rate since 1988. The growth rate was 1.6 per cent, or 331,900 people. Net overseas migration contributed 56 per cent of that increase. As is well known, a large proportion of those people settle in Sydney. But for years, Sydney has just pretended it wasn’t happening..

Water is a good example because it’s so simple. A Water Supply Strategic Review prepared for the Water Board in 1991 noted that since Warragamba Dam had been completed in 1960, Sydney’s water storage capacity had been increased by only 2 per cent. This was despite an increase in population from 2.3 million to 3.6 million. The report noted, given the projected future population increase, “if measures are not taken to provide Sydney with additional storage, early in the next century there will be a real risk of serious water restrictions being necessary”.

The rest is history, but try to find anyone today who will admit our water restrictions are the result of population growth and the failure by governments to respond adequately. Much easier to blame drought and global warming.

The same thing can be seen with other issues. Just this week in the Herald there’s been coverage of a report on road congestion by the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Among other things, the report advocates building more roads to keep pace with population increase. The Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, rejected the report as the work of “academics in ivory towers”. He also rejected a proposal by the institute for congestion pricing of traffic.

So what do the streetwise guys in government propose as a response to population pressure on our roads? In relation to the size of the problem, just about nothing. When you consider the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics has predicted an 18 per cent increase in car use by 2020 due to population growth, maybe we need something better.

Why has the link between immigration numbers and the above issues been ignored? One reason is that state governments have no say in those numbers. And the Federal Government has no (direct) responsibility for most of the problems they cause. If Kevin Rudd knew that when he bumped immigrant numbers up he’d be responsible for all the extra schools, hospitals and roads that would be needed, he might think twice.

Another reason immigration has been ignored is because to question it is to be seen as politically incorrect, even racist. This could why the environmental movement has largely ignored it, despite its central role in the problems the movement talks about all the time. The Australian Greens’ record on this has been documented by author and conservationist William J. Lines. Writing with Natalie Stone in People and Place in 2003, he noted: “Originally promulgated in 1995, the [Green] party’s population policy was revised in 1998 and again in 2002. With each revision the Greens altered their principles, lessened their commitment to limiting population growth . [and] replaced concern about population and environmental degradation with a social justice, global human rights platform.”

Before the policy launch for the 1998 federal election, “the Greens’ immigration policy proposed that ‘Australia’s voluntary immigration program be reduced as part of a strategy to achieve eventual stabilisation of the Australian population’. Subsequent policies dropped this strategy entirely and made no recommendation to reduce immigration. In fact the [policy] targets now openly encourage immigration”. Another rollover occurred in the Australian Conservation Foundation. In his book Patriots (UQP), Lines describes how in the 1990s “each successive leader [of the ACF] displayed an extreme reluctance to discuss population”.

Barry Cohen, the former Labor politician, noted recently that it is bizarre to hold apocalyptic beliefs about human-induced climate change while supporting near-record levels of immigration.

It’s time for a national conversation about immigration numbers. We’ll be starting from a long way behind. At the moment the Government doesn’t even have an overall number for immigration for next year, which is strange when you consider the Prime Minister’s belief in planning and targets. The issue of population was treated in a trivial manner by the 2020 Summit, which arrived at the following vision: “By 2020 we will have a sustainable population and consumption policy: while the population grows, net consumption should decrease.” Let’s get real.

Steve Bracks, the former Victorian premier, has called for the premiers’ conference to devise a population policy and then look at how the nation will cope with the resultant immigrant numbers. He wants the Commonwealth to give more money for this purpose to the states. Whatever figure is arrived at, this sounds like a sensible approach.

A judge Wednesday threw out a lawsuit filed by a Los Angeles resident who wanted to repeal a long-standing LAPD order that restricts when police officers may ask people about their immigration status.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu, granting a motion from the city and the American Civil Liberties Union, said Harold Sturgeon had failed to prove that Special Order 40 was in conflict with federal and state laws that dictate the flow of information between local and federal agencies regarding people’s immigration status.

Sturgeon sued the LAPD in 2006 in an effort to overturn the nearly 3-decade-old order, which prohibits officers from detaining someone solely for the purpose of determining whether he or she is in the country illegally. The order, implemented in 1979 by then-police Chief Daryl F. Gates, is aimed at encouraging illegal immigrants to assist police in cases by ensuring them that their cooperation will not put them at risk.

Sturgeon acknowledged he had no personal experience with the order, but instead brought the lawsuit as a city taxpayer, who argued that his taxes were being used to further an illegal endeavor.

“We’re very pleased,” said Hector Villagra, an ACLU director, after the ruling. For decades, “the Police Department has struck an important balance between public safety and the enforcement of federal immigration law. It has tried to maintain an equilibrium that would allow undocumented witnesses and victims of crime to feel confident that they can come to the police. . . . That balance has been upheld today.”

In court papers, Sturgeon’s lawyers called Special Order 40 “essentially a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding illegal aliens.” They tried to persuade Treu that the LAPD policy unlawfully restricted officers’ ability to share information with federal immigration officials — a claim that city and ACLU attorneys rebutted.

The judge rejected the gambit, saying the order did not prohibit LAPD officers from communicating with federal authorities. Paul Orfanedes, an attorney for Judicial Watch, the group that argued the case for Sturgeon, said he was “disappointed” with the ruling but declined to say whether he expected his client to pursue an appeal.

Wednesday’s ruling had a particularly far-reaching effect because scores of police departments across the country have followed the LAPD in implementing similar policies.

Sturgeon is not the only one to have turned to the courts on the issue. Another lawsuit challenges Special Order 40 on the grounds that it violates an obscure state code that appears to require local police to report to federal authorities the names of illegal immigrants arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking or possession. That case is on hold until an appeals court rules whether the state code is constitutional, said attorney David Klehm, who drafted the litigation.

In recent months, there has been heightened political and public attention on Special Order 40. The policy came under intense scrutiny after the March killing of high school athlete Jamiel Shaw II. Shaw was allegedly gunned down by a reputed gang member who was in the country illegally. The suspect, Pedro Espinoza, had been released from jail the day before the slaying.

Opponents of the order, led by Shaw’s parents, seized on the slaying, saying the boy would not have been killed had police not been hamstrung by the LAPD’s policy. The claims were inaccurate because Espinoza had been arrested in another city and held in a county facility, but they nonetheless prompted a city councilman to call for an amendment to the order and sparked overwhelming public debate.

In delivering his decision, Treu was keenly aware of the intense feelings on both sides of the immigration debate and tried to preempt accusations that he was taking sides. In his ruling, Treu cautioned that it was not “the court’s function to consider the wisdom of the enactment of Special Order 40.” His decision, he said, “is rather a neutral exercise of legal interpretation.”

Background

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.